Share this:

Related posts:

This entry was posted on Monday, January 11th, 2010 at 12:05 pm and is filed under New Zealand.
You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed.
Both comments and pings are currently closed.

Doesn’t it make sense to make the mandatory sentence for murder Preventative detention with a minimum parole eligibility set by the judge. This would allow a parole board to determine when a murderer is rehabilitated and not at risk of re-offending, and a judge allowance to still decide the scale of the murder. Also, it will allow people to be locked up for the slightest breach of parole. In fact, wouldn’t it make sense to give much longer prison sentences to all criminals with minimum parole eligibility set by the judge. For instance, I read of many people who are constantly doing petty crimes, wouldn’t it make sense to lock these people up indefinitely untill they are not likely to reoffend (ie, rehabilitated?).

CharlieBrown – This is effectively what happens for murder. The virtually mandatory sentence is life imprisonment (the only acknowledged exception is a suicide pact that goes wrong) and the judge is virtually obliged to set a 10 or 17 year minimum depending on circumstances. A judge has to explain any reasons for something other than life imprisonment or less than a 10/17 year minimum and such cases are extremely rare.

Life imprisonment goes further then preventative detention, the sentence hangs over the offender’s head until his or her death (law change or Royal Pardon excepted) – he or she is on parole for life and liable for recall for breach of parole or reoffending.

What would make sense would be for a Parole Board to be able to set a time before its next hearing of the prisoner’s case, say up to 5 years. This means victims need only worry about a 5 yearly appearance instead of an annual appearance.

Your ‘secong leg’ is effectively a ‘three strikes’ type policy that has been discredited in civilized administrations (yes, IMO NT and WA are not civilized in this regard). Judges are expected to take account of an accused’s record when sentencing and have regard for the preventative and incapacitation aspects for multiple offenders. It is laid out in the Sentencing Act.

Marsh may be gone finally, but the trail of destruction he has left in his wake remains immense.

The lives he took, the families and relationships he destroyed, the career of Diane Miller (who was a trained social worker, devoting her life to helping those less fortunate) – all obliterated at the whim of a piece of scum who never contributed a single positive thing to society. Marsh was not satisfied to just “take” from society though, he got a thrill from the destruction and mayhem he caused. He will deservedly remain one of the strongest arguments for pro-death penalty advocates in NZ.

NZ is a far better place without him – tonight I will celebrate and toast the demise of Rufus Junior Marsh.

peterwn – “Your ’secong leg’ is effectively a ‘three strikes’ type policy that has been discredited in civilized administrations (yes, IMO NT and WA are not civilized in this regard). Judges are expected to take account of an accused’s record when sentencing and have regard for the preventative and incapacitation aspects for multiple offenders. It is laid out in the Sentencing Act.”

I don’t see the similarity to 3 strikes. If someone is guilty of a huge number of minor crimes, and doesn’t show any indication to changing their ways, then not letting them out of prison till that inidcation changes seems justified. Likewise, once let out they are free to live a normal life, providing they don’t commit any crimes, otherwise back to prison till they satisfy the parole board again. This sentence isn’t a life imprisonment sentence, it is a life without crime sentence.

Whereas 3 strikes would allow someone to be locked up for life after being found guilty of 3 crimes, a sentence as I suggested would not put any barriers up for rehabilitation and freedom other than showing real signs of changing

It’s an interesting question – do parole boards consider how “able-bodied” a person is as a mitigating factor as to whether they get let out or not. If so, then it may be in the prisoners interest to be less able-bodied in order to get out of prison sooner. In that case it may be in the prisoners interest to give them the option to be voluntarily crippled or castrated in exchange for a shorter prison term.

At a hearing in 2008, the board said he was unlikely to be freed until he was too old to pose a risk.

“It may be a more humane and realistic outcome to allow Mr Marsh to accept that he is very unlikely to be ready for release until he has been made frail with age.”

Another very long standing policy kicks in – the undesirability of a prisoner dying in jail, it is considered quite appropriate in civilized societies to release on humanitarian grounds a prisoner known to be dying, could be very old age. Hence the Parole Board’s policy.

It is interesting that Alan Turing (the ‘father’ of computer logic) was given the option of chemical castration after being accused of the homosexual behaviour (under that nasty little piece of law that used to be in UK and NZ which made it very easy to clobber alleged homosexuals) but chose total crippling ie his life.

Chemical castration may not necessarily work, the man may still be disposed to commit sexual crimes.

DPF, you are incorrect to claim that we have “very few” repeat killers – unless you consider 10 or 12 of them to be very few. These are people (all men) who have killed, served a sentence for either murder or manslaughter, then come out and killed again. The SST did a piece on these killers about the middle of last year.

Not all of them are repeat murderers, but the victims are just as dead if the killer is found guilty of manslaughter rather than murder. As anyone with legal training or knowledge of the legal system knows, the difference between a manslaughter and murder verdict is often a good lawyer – particularly those case on the borderline between the two.

What most NZers don’t realise is that we have so many more dangerous guys than this currently on the outside!! And with the influence of methamphetamine on them they are boilers ready to blow – gotta love the gangs like the Hells Angels and the Headhunters, they keep criminals pumped and ready to destroy the very fabric of society decent Kiwis value and work hard for.

**I couldn’t agree more with Big Bruv (12:30, 11/01/2010)**, if Bell and Burton pop off the mortal coil this year I will have a glass of 20 yr + scotch in celebration for each.

Insofar as a wider conversation might merit a comment … I think DPF’s relay of the parole board’s assessment is the first parole board decision in the last 5 years I’ve not been actively outraged about. Well done parole board… try to keep it up okay!?

Technically Marsh is not a double murderer… Although he is responsible for taking two lives – his first conviction (for an offence resulting in death) was for manslaughter not murder. NZ still only has two double murderers – Dennis Luke and Graeme Burton.